Well, not really. “Dystopian” maybe not be the most apt descriptor of a car which sold well, formed the foundation of the Mustang’s 1980s revival and remains well-loved by most of us here at Curbside Classic. But with a name like “Futura,” dour styling and a debut right before “Gas Crisis II,” it might have seemed like an unfulfilling new normal for a portion of customers trading in larger, more traditional cars.

For most Americans, though, they were honest, affordable customizable machines with good stamina. As this particular example sits here at the curb, thirty-three years later, Futura might’ve actually been quite the apt moniker. While it’s been in front of this house, full of its owners’ trash, for several months, Fairmonts were regularly seen in daily use well into the ’90s, so they are in the running as some of the most durable cars of their era. Possibly some of the most rust-resistant also.

1981 was the final year of the Fairmont wagon–which was folded into the new Grenada line-up for ’82–as well as the first year the Futura label was extended to sedans and wagons in the form of an option package.

I wasn’t alive in the late ’70s, but I imagine these cars were a very big surprise when launched after years of highly decorated designs from the big-three. Much like the 1981 Chrysler Ks, they wore their frugality quite openly and like those cars, reskinned, spiffier variants came on line after a few years, to the relief of those customers who feared the cars were the portent of a penitent automotive future.

If anything, this is one of the more indulgent Fairmonts. I previously thought Futura was a model name exclusive to the original Crown Vic-inspired coupe variant of the Fox, but as the full console and gauge package seen here show, it enabled the addition of some rather exclusive options in the workaday wagon world, if not functioning as somewhat of a touring package in and of itself. That must make this car somewhat uncommon as, indeed, most Fairmont I remember were sedans with vinyl bench seats.

From this angle, you can see why it made sense to bring the blue oval badge back with the Granada “replacement;” these cars were somewhat generic looking, though certainly not unattractive. Chrysler similarly gave the Pentastar logo greater billing as the ’80s wore on.

By 1981, the optional V8 was the 255 CID (4.2 liter) unit, not the 302. Given its high trim level, it’s possible that this wagon is so equipped. Otherwise, this likely has the 3.3 liter six unless some masochist decided to order it with the 2.3 liter four. I don’t know which engine would be best/worst. I’m inclined to say the 255 would be the best of a series of bad options, and the 3.3 liter six doesn’t exactly have a great rep next to Chevy’s straight-six and Chrysler’s slant-six, though neither of those were notably sprightly by that point. It’s also possible both the six and the V8 weigh about the same amount, as I’ve never heard any complaints about the latter burdening the front end of the similar Mustang, so I suppose it’s safe to bet the 255 was the ideal engine. I won’t claim to have a solid answer; I’ve never driven any of these.

The nearest I’ve come was the Tempo, which used a cut-down version of the 3.3 six, so not close at all. That car, conceived during the near-bankruptcy which Ford survived on account of the early Fox-chassis variants, was built on a stretched Escort platform and was a rotten device. It nevertheless replaced the Fairmont, with aero styling which must’ve fooled more than a few car buyers at the time. Until then, late ’70s Fords were coming out wearing an ultra-conservative look, and from this angle, an Escort and Fairmont wagon looked much the same.

I think I prefer this Fairmont’s rather chaste appearance over many of the aero Fords, with the exception of the Taurus and Merkur/Sierra. The ’84 Thunderbird never did much for me, with its long overhangs, and these days, it doesn’t have quite the quaintness of this car. Actually, Ford’s late ’70s styling efforts were some of the best in the domestic industry, with cars like the F-150 and Town Car retaining their respectability until their replacement. It’s a look that, in my opinion, worked best on the Fairmont two-door sedan and on the Mustang until 1993.

It was thoroughly appropriate to the upcoming decade and on this wagon, with its enormous glass area, it remains appealing. Even crouched down next to it, the low belt line made it possible for my camera to pick up this car’s low-back buckets with their famously useless Detroit headrests. Ford was the first to offer customers something better to replace these in family-friendly models, but it would have to wait a few years.

The Fairmont managed to hang around until 19851986, though in Granada and then LTD form. As a child, it was very confusing, since they all shared the same doors, proportions and many interior bits. I knew how GM branding worked, but I couldn’t figure out why the same Ford had so many different names. Our featured car was likely well-kept on account of its generously ordered options and ergonomic correctness and even today in rust-free from, it’s fully serviceable. One can hope it gets rescued by a Fox-chassis fan (of which there are plenty) and is given new life. It’s hard not to have such utopian expectations for a modern classic which shared so many components with well-regarded, athletic siblings.

99 Comments

I bought an 83 Sedan from a boneyard back in ’98 for $75.00. I put a radiator in it and drove that car for a few years.It had a straight six with an automatic and A/C. Great car. The only complaint I had was the dog gone horn button/switch was the turn indicator lever. What was Ford thinking??

It varies on late model GM cars, it seems the larger cars still have them on the dash, the W-bodies did, the new Camaro and Regal have them on the dash too, so do the trucks, but the smaller cars have them on the turn signal stalk.

Once GM dropped the bomb of actually installing a driver’s side airbag in the early 70’s everyone was figuring that either the gov’t was going to mandate it soon, which they did start indicating was their plan, or that they would have to offer them to stay competitive. So yes this steering column and steering wheel were designed to be able to handle air bags.

In the end the automakers lobbied hard and delayed the mandate for many years. Part of it was that the original intended use of airbags was for people who didn’t use seat belts. So the law became that cars had to have passive restraints and even then automakers just had to equip a percentage of their cars initially.

I’ve heard that one but I’m betting that it was done on the euro cars to save the money of the sliding horn contact. It was reported when this column was new that it was “airbag ready” in the automotive press. The GM airbags were available 74-76 or the prime time when Ford would have been working on the Fox. It was also likely that Ford would have thought that GM might be offering them on the expected downsized Bs.

It was a ford euro thing, and the influence spread to Australia too. The ford XB series falcon recieved a multi purpose column stalk that operated the headlights, flasher, windscreen washer, and horn. That was in 1973. The previous model falcon had a more American influence, with a conventional horn, a rocker switch on the dash for the lights, and a foot operated high beam button. I had 1987 XF series falcon that still retained the horn on the stalk. They must have changed it back to the wheel in the late 80’s/early 90’s.

“I imagine these cars were a very big surprise when launched after years of highly decorated designs from the big-three.”

I was old enough then to recognize this was a *major* departure for Dearborn. The thing handled well & didn’t have overboosted power steering. Main downside was, it was overly Spartan in its paint & trim, I think to not infringe on the Granada’s market space.

Of course mechanically it was nothing new, but at least there was plenty of width under the hood for a V8 compared to the Maverick. My mother’s ’78 Futura coupe had the 302 with plenty of punch, enough for me to fishtail it (and recover) one time on a wet corner. It was entertaining to drive on a local mountain road.

I say it was Ford’s best effort of the ’70s, and a strategically prudent one as well considering how many successor models it spawned.

My family had two. I learned to drive on a 4-cyl 4-speed Fairmont. that I inherited. We got it because it was affordable and economical and cost a lot less than a Malibu or a Citation (X-car). Ours had the handling suspension AND those turbine wheel covers, which at the time I thought did a great job of looking like alloy wheels. It was a good, honest, car, though my dad thought it was cheap and “tinny”

According to Consumer Reports, the 4-cyl auto was quicker than the 6-cyl auto, and used less gas. The 4-cy with 4-spd was even quicker (though still slow) and got 29 mpg at 50mph in the magazine. (We did better on long trips, averaging 28-32 doing 55-60. Overall got 20-23 in suburban Long Island driving)

In the late 80s, my folks got a used 81 2-dr sedan with the six. It had a more upscale interior (but lacked the turbine wheel covers), but with a bench. In any case, it was a lot thirstier than my 4-cyl (albeit with a 4-spd), and sounded worst when driven hard.

My folks also had one, a ’79 2-door sedan with the 4cyl and auto. I was way too young to have driven it (it was sold in ’88 when I was 8 years old) but I remember it well. No handling suspension, but it did have the turbine wheel covers, and a black vinyl interior that would burn the heck out of you on hot days.

Dad rather liked it. Mom, on the other hand, hated it, being used to V8 power (her contemporary car was a V8 ’79 Malibu and the two previous were a ’68 Impala and ’72 Chevelle, both V8 as well.)

Though somewhat plain in non-Futura trim, these were good-looking cars in the boxy late 70’s idiom. I’ve always been a little puzzled at how few survive and that they’ve never really caught on as a street rod base or a sort of “modern classic”, unlike the contemporary Malibu which can still be frequently seen today.

Maybe it’s a durability thing? The Fairmont was sold because of some sort of valvetrain issue, and I don’t even think it had 100K miles on it. Our Malibu, on the other hand, was on the road until 2001 and 174K. (It still survives though it hasn’t been driven in 13 years…someday…)

I love these. However, I was not a fan when they first came out. Too stark, too plain, and just not like those mini-Mark IVs (like the Granada) that Ford was putting out in the 70s. However, as time wore on, I came to like them more and more. I owned a Mercury Marquis version.

One minor point is that these (as LTD and Marquis) were still offered as late as the 1986 model year. The Taurus/Sable were not ready for release at the beginning of the 1986 model year, so these came back (with a high mounted center stoplight placed externally on top of the liftgate) for a few months until the replacement was ready. I know this because mine was one of the 86s.

As for the engine choice, make mine the 6. This was too much car for the 4, and that 255 V8 would have me depressed all the time, expecting more out of a V8 but never getting it. So, I guess that leaves the hoary old 200 inline 6.

That hoary old 200in six was indestructible. I drove my late and very lamented ’79 Fairmont wagon from Elyria Ohio to my home in Lakewood, about 25 miles, with no coolant. Sucker seized up in my driveway, and the next morning fired up like nothing had happened.

The Fairmont had so much in common with the Volvo 740 including the fact that the bodystyle looked best as a wagon and got less attractive with every nip, tuck and facelift. I’ve always hated the styling of the Futura 2-door and didn’t know they used that name for other models. Love that Wagonmaster ad and the combination of the white color with wood paneling.

I’ve never driven a Fairmont/LTD/Granada, but I’d like to think the 200 straight six retained some of the good qualities from its Falcon days. I drove a beater ’65 Falcon for a year or two with the six ahead of a three speed auto and it was a good combo. Smooth, adequate power, simple and reliable. I’d take the straight six in this wagon over the baby V8 for sure. By then both engines were smog-strangled messes but with the right carb and tune the old Falcon six is an honest lump of an engine. With the 255, the additional fuel consumption and maintenance complications would have no real pay off in performance…not that there’s more than a handful of 255s left in the wild. The main advantage would be the ease of replacing it with a 302.

Unfortunately, the 200 6 was saddled with a combination of pre-historic power-stifling emissions components and extremely tall (low numerically) axle ratios in order to meet both emissions and CAFE requirements of the time, resulting in extremely sluggish performance and lousy gas mileage in real world usage. In a previous job, I periodically drove my employer’s 1982 Zephyr station wagon for pick-up and delivery duties. Being that this was in Seattle, I had to contend with hills. Pressing down on the accelerator usually resulted in more noise, knocking, pinging, and extremely tepid forward progress.( I think a Peugeot 504 diesel wagon with an automatic could beat it in a drag race) .it was a decent handling, comfortable, and roomy vehicle, but the 200 cube 6 was horribly underpowered. The 255 cube V-8 wasn’t much of an improvement, although the few extra foot/pounds of torque may have helped getting you a couple of feet further up one of Seattle’s hills before the great God of Detonation decreed no more forward motion. I can only imagine the masochists that would’ve ordered the 2.3/automatic combo regretting their powertrain choice the first time they tried to attempt acceleration.

Had Ford done any real development on the 200 though? It looks like it had 20 fewer horsepower and 10 lb-ft less torque than the Australian 3.3L Falcon. Granted we didn’t have unleaded fuel yet, but they developed the engine further by then and it didn’t lose any power when that came in.

It wasn’t the unleaded fuel that caused a loss of HP it was the retarded ignition and cam timing along with often lower compression that caused the loss of power. Money also had to be focused on meeting emissions and safety standards over power.

John H

Posted July 15, 2014 at 10:03 PM

When unleaded was introduced in Australia in 1986 it was 91 RON compared to 95-96 RON of super leaded that it replaced (you never saw “standard” fuel by then), so compression ratios usually did drop as a direct result of the fuel change, in addition any effect of the emission reg changes.

All three factors you’ve listed relate to pre-ignition – was unleaded less resistant to knocking even with the same octane number? Holden used those sort of measures to meet the 1976 emissions regs here – a band-aid approach versus changing combustion chamber shapes etc.

I was afraid of that, but hopefully ditching the emissions equipment and putting on an appropriate carb and distributor would cure most of those problems. Then get a different rear from the junkyard… But yeah if you have to do all of that just to get it running decent, is it really worth it?

Hell yea it is! An 8.8 from a Fox Mustang is ridiculously easy to install, and changes the whole personality of the car. Bought the 8.8 for my Fairmont off Craigslist for all of $200.00 drum-to-drum. And the best part is… although I love Fox Mustangs a Fairmont ISN’T a Fox Mustang… so one has little chance of parking next to themselves at a car show or cruise 😀 .

If I’m not mistaken, the 1978-1983 Ford Fairmont is the last example of a major automotive archetype, the inline-6 front-engine rear-drive 5-6 passenger 100″ to 105″ wheelbase American “compact” car.

Starting with the 1939 Studebaker Champion, through the Ramblers, Falcons, Larks, Valiants, Chevy II / Novas, to the Mavericks, Dusters, Aspens and finally 1983 Fairmonts. Functional design, relatively cheap to run and maintain, easy to fix, relatively durable. Fast enough, OK handling for mom and dad. Nothing fancy, no pretentions. Became obsolete when real-world requirements called for more efficient and cleaner inline fours, usually driving the front wheels.

If it has the inline six, this Fairmont would be one of the end of its breed. I’ve always thought its simple but attractive styling and design made it a fitting final compact.

drove me nuts when I worked for a newspaper at the end of the M body run and they persisted in describing them as “huge, boat-like”…they were Dart-sized, which merely 10 years earlier was being held up as the height of civic responsibility to downsize to. I get where today’s 20 year old sees a fairmont as large, but seeing a M body as a boat in 1989? Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia…:)

You can still buy such a car today, albeit not in the USA. I do agree with you though – now the ‘midsize’ cars are as large as they are, the only reason to buy rwd is for better handling and performance.

The Fairmont was definitely McNamara-worthy in harking back to the original Falcon. Something that strikes me is that while the body is only slightly smaller than the Australian Falcon of the same era, the tire size is much smaller, they look like roller skates.

Perry mentioned 6-cyl vs V8 engine weight, the short-deck 200ci is about 75lb lighter than the Windsor V8. (the Australian Falcon by this time shared the block with the 250ci 6)

Right you are, John H, thanks for the correction. I was working from memory, thinking of the 100″ Rambler Americans. Let’s say 100″ to 110″ plus or minus.

I do agree with Carmine. Big Three compacts were by-definition smaller and simpler than the “full-size” car or cars above them. A Slant Six Diplomat meets the size and drive train criteria, but by the mid-80s Diplomats and Furys were the top of the line. Sorry, Jim.

c5karl is right about the Concord, too. In fact they all had inline sixes in 1983, it’s last year.

Interesting how the sixties stripper compacts are now favored and driven by hipsters. Not unusual to see Falcons, Chevy Iis and Valiants on Portland streets. Cars that might be as old or older than their owners’ parents!

Maybe they have like 20 different variants, we do down here in Florida where you can get everything from the standard tag, to a tag celebrating every special cause, college, sports team, endangered species, the palmetto bug, etc etc etc….

You called it. The “standard” plate changes every 3 years or so – just because. They alternate between pretty good to just plain stupid (like the time we celebrated “amber waves of grain” with pictures of wheat growing – even though we grow almost nothing but corn and soybeans.) Then there is the In God We Trust plate (on this car, not surprisingly) and then the plates for a bazillion colleges and causes which requires an additional fee plus some kind of form or OK from the college or cause (which usually involves a donation.) Wow but I miss the good old days of handing them a few bucks and making no other decisions. It’s just a license plate, ferkryinoutloud!

MikePDX

Posted July 11, 2014 at 1:23 PM

If I lived in Indiana I’d start a campaign for the “In God We Trust All Others Pay Cash” plate to honor the immortal Hoosier storyteller and writer Jean Shepherd.

Hey Carmine, in Florida they have more like 100 to 200 different variants. And each one can be had with the standard mishmash of letters and numbers, or a vanity. I don’t think Indiana’s there yet….

CARMINE

Posted July 11, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Yep, we have one for every sports team, both pro and college, every school, every cause, all armed services division, veterans, wounded veterans, disabled veterans, John Lennon, Challenger shuttle, Columbia shuttle, farming, wildlife, special olympics…etc etc

Woody Escort is something I’ve never even seen in photographic form until today. It’s so tempting in a “this is very bad for you, you won’t even enjoy it when you get it” kind of way. I mean, LOOK AT THAT DI-NOC! So much Di-Noc! It’s on everything, everywhere! Look at it!

I remember the Escort Squires (Is that what they were called, or am I making that up?) with the woody paneling from the 80’s and seeing them here and there into the 90’s. I have not, however, seen one since then, despite still finding Escort wagons here and there on rare occasions.

While I was living in Guam 78-81. my neighbor had a Fairmont (possibly a Zephyr). Six with auto, four door sedan. Didn’t care much for it at the time because I compared it with my Concord. Turned out to probably be a better car.

Curiously when one of the major mags (Hot Rod or Car Craft) was doing a competition that included laps, transit, drags, economy. One of these with a 302 won one year. Pulled about 30 in the mpg contest and fared well on the strip. I think Ford had a winner for it’s time. I remember this well because I was driving a Lincoln TC (box design). My 86 had essentially the same engine and impressed me continually.

The 1981 woody Wagonmaster ad has to be among the last for this theme.

The Fairmont always screamed “cheap” to me, and I never paid much attention. My wife to be drove a 1980 Mercury Zephyr sedan Fairmont clone briefly when I first met her. It was a better car than I had given it credit for.

In hindsight, I can see their appeal as cheap, simple and competent transportation. Sort of the segment the Japanese were serving when these came out. I never really thought of it this way before, but the Fairmont was a deluxe sized Japanese car.

The Fairmont likely picked up a lot of would be low end Volare sales after that car crashed.

My Grandma bought an ’81 Fairmont 4-door sedan brand new. Only one I’ve ever seen in its two-tone paint combination of black over silver, with a red interior. The dashboard looks familiar, but ours did not have the same steering wheel as the featured car.

She replaced the Fairmont with a new Monte Carlo in 1986 and sold it to my parents for my Dad to drive. I’m sure it had the inline-6 engine, and it never gave him any trouble, but he hated the car. Sold it to another relative after a couple years.

I recall that the doors felt very light and sounded tinny when you closed them. It also took a long time to get any heat from the vents in the winter. My Dad said the engine had a “reverse-flow” cooling system which contributed to it being economical, but resulted in a long warm-up period. I don’t remember much more about it.

I don’t know where my Dad got that idea from then, he’s usually more knowledgeable than that about his own equipment. I had no reason to second-guess him, and I’ll never own a Ford myself, so no personal experience with them.

I’ve always liked the rakish angle of these wagon liftgates. It’s no C3 Avant (is this angled liftgate day at CC?) but it brings some flair to a very squared-off body.

Also interesting how much mileage Ford got out of it. 3 different cars, over 9 model years (78-86 Fairmont/Granada/LTD plus Mercury equivalents), identical from the b-pillar back. It certainly worked with all three, but one wonders how the purchaser of a shiny new 1986 LTD felt when encountering a clapped-out ’78 Fairmont wagon that was 2/3 identical to their new car…

Then again the purchaser of a 1990 Caprice wagon could have much the same situation, but with a ’77 Impala. Or a 2010 Crown Vic vs. a ’98. I guess time doesn’t fly for certain designs.

Was that floor mounted shifter console a option for the Fairmont Futura or was it added from another car like the T-Bird of the era? Not only does that car have a floor mounted shifter but it has a digital clock and that little light up diagram of a car showing any doors open. It is a shame that the car seems to be relagated to be used as a 4 wheel storage shed.

The floor shift was a $49 option on the 1982 Granada (essentially the same car) that I factory ordered that year – see window sticker. You automatically got bucket seats with the floor shift option. I believe the console was a separate option – mine did not have one. The 200 inline six was indestructible. I sold the car to a friend decades ago and it was taken out service only last year when given to charity. These cars may have been boring but they were uncomplicated and durable. This wagon appears to be very well-optioned. And the owner is still obsessing about Vietnam?

Once the 302 went away the engine to have was the 200 6 the 255 was a dog and not as reliable nor did it have the parts availability as many of the parts were unique to it.

The “Falcon 6” was a much better engine that the Chevy 6 and pretty darn close to the slant 6 in absolute durability. The durability of the Falcon 6 is one of the reasons you still see so many Falcons, had they been problematic they never would have lived past the time when they were just a cheap beater car as they would have went to the scrap yard if the engine went. It’s derivitive that HSC 2.3 was also very durable, they will take 200K of abuse and keep on going. While that doesn’t sound like much today having a 4 cyl that would last that long without needing major work nor getting regular maintenance in the 80’s was quite rare.

I’m glad someone has comparisons here; the only experience I ever had with American I-6s was in a summer job driving Dodge D-series & sometimes a ’69 Chevy C/10. Much preferred the latter, esp. when under petrol instead of natural-gas power (I read gas meters).

It seems Ford made absolutely no effort to improve the 200, am I correct? Even Chrysler had the Slant-6 Hyper Pak for a short time.

I used to know a neighbour who had a Ford Fairmont wagon when I was growing up. It’s too bad they sold it when they did, for I thought it was the most handsome looking ford to come out of the late 1970s.

There is a book (I forgot the name of it) but the author describes these as “the automotive equivalent of the spinster librarian.” We had one when I was a kid. Plain, no frills but absolutely reliable. Never failed us.

By the way, this is the thing I sometimes don’t understand with american cars.

I’ve got a ’79 Caprice, it’s a great car and it seems that some ideas were whispered to GM engineers by God himself, such as seatbelts that don’t choke you or the ability to tune the speed of intermittent windshield wipers (I never saw any of these really smart features on any european or japanese car I’ve ever driven).

So why did they also put those useless headrests ? Why there are no seat recliners ? Why are rearview mirrors so small that the right one is useless ? And why there isn’t at least ONE compartement besides the glovebox in such a big car ?

Well the headrests from this era were designed to reduce whiplash in a rear end collision and were tested effectively to do so, at least when properly adjusted. They were not designed for lounging. Of course of those people who do pull them up from their lowest position they usually adjust them so they would be appropriate for lounging and not for the best crash protection.

To me the Ford Fairmont was a welcome change at Ford, away from the hoary old overblown Falcon that had become the Granada, and the pillowy, steering-wheel-turns-a-propeller-in-a-bucket-of-water Torino. It was chaste, trim, without (for its day) waste of space and bulk. It handled better than the Detroit norm and its smallish engines were still peppy in that lightweight body.

And for all that, people called it “cheap.”

The Futura coupe seemed symptomatic of Ford trying to make the Fairmont what it was not intended to be.

Years later I worked with a man who regularly hauled things to and from work in his Fairmont wagon. It had survived all that time, still in its orangey nonmetallic paint. With that color, it was no wonder that it was called “The Pumpkin.” It survived, if memory serves me, until 2002 when he finally bought a Taurus wagon. Or was it a Sable? For that matter, he drove it to the dealer, so it still ran. Maybe it still does, today.

Had to drive them for work in the early-mid 80s…at least it was air-conditioned. That was pretty much about the best thing I could say about ’em.

That weird kinda pale-yellow color with a brown/tan interior. Newspaper here had a fleet of them. We drove “ad copy proofs” out to advertisers all over town. You either drove one of these, or a falling-apart mail Jeep.

Pains me to think that I was “happy” on the days I got to drive a Fairmont instead of the alternative…like I said…at least it was air conditioned.

I don’t remember much about these, but I do know that all the yummy bits from a Mustang GT would swap in. A worked over 302 with 5 spd, and an upgraded suspension would make for a nice little sleeper.

I actually remember a really cherry beige/gold Futura coupe that was upgraded like this. It had the whole California rake going on with big fatties out back, skinnies up front. This was back in Humboldt, TN near where I grew up. In those days, ‘cruising the strip’ was the thing to do, and there was a bit of street racing taking place. That little Futura definitely held its own, and I always thought it was an interesting choice of car to build up.

In the next city over I see a Futura that has benefited from a host of late model Mustang parts. It is wearing 5 lug brake parts and Mustang wheels wrapped with what looks like is as large a tire as you can use without cutting metal to prevent rubbing with it lowered 1~1.5″. Not sure what is under the hood. But it is someones baby that they put a fair amount of work into.

We had a few of these wagons in our family. The ’79 Fairmont my father owned had a 302 V8 but was otherwise very basic. It was actually reasonably peppy, but the 302 in that car was terrible. It was pretty well completely worn before 100K miles, but part of that was likely the first owners lack of care. This was around the time that Canada switch to the Metric system, and many cars still used the 5 digit odometers. What my father thought was a low mile car, turned out it had been used extensively and already had turned over 100K kilometers. I remember the car having a front bench seat but only seat belts for two. My father added a middle belt to make it seat six. I also remember that the horn was activated by the side stalk instead, which I thought was the worst place for a horn when you needed it. In any case that car had lots of problems as well rust issues, so it was enough to get my father off Fords for a long time.

Around the same time my, another family member bought a new 1980 (or 1981) Zephry Villager wagon with woodgrain. It had the 200 six which proved to be fairly reliable but was slow. That car’s top speed was 140km/h, on a good day. It lasted until the mid 1990’s when it was sold off as a beater. Overall It was a decent car, just boring and plain.

Another relative had a 1982 Cougar wagon, loaded with every option and a 3.8L V6. This car was a dud too, lots of problems, and was traded in on a new Taurus wagon that proved to be far better until the transmission failed (but that was after 10 years).

It’s funny to see Futura being used as an upmarket model of the Fairmont! Here in Australia the Futura name denoted a car upmarket from the base Falcon, but not as fancy as a Fairmont or Fairmont Ghia. Alternative universe!

See, some of us just think of it in terms of the ’50s Lincoln show car of that name, the car that George Barris famously converted into the Batmobile for the 1960s Batman TV show (which is a pretty jarring contrast with this car, I must say).

Ahhh, damn. A Fox wagon with buckets and a console? This puppy has the makings of a sleeper in the grand tradition. If it were close I would snap it up in a heartbeat-I had three Fox variants myself (a Zephyr sedan, a Futura coupe and an LTD sedan, respectively). These were like a virus back in the day, freaking everywhere-even in my family. Now they’re getting fairly thin on the ground. Someone save this sucker and clean it out, ferchrissake.